Talk:Treaty of Farixen
"The treaty itself may be named after Firaxan sharks from Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic. " It's not, unless subconsciously. The word "far-eh-zen" just popped into my head when I sat down to write the codex. -- Stormwaltz 16:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC) :That's actually quite possible L'Etoile, you'd be surprised how often already known things come up into our heads subconsciously and are used in other applications, without really knowing why. --Delsana 03:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Washington Naval Treaty Hopefully this will clear this up quickly, as this is a talk page and not a forum, but the increased development of carriers was an unintended consequence of the treaty. Prior to the treaty the US had 1 carrier, a converted coal ship. After the treaty was signed, 5 more were constructed. And please refer to the following, taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty. "In the 1920s the Department of the Navy had a low opinion of the concept of naval aviation despite (or perhaps because of) Billy Mitchell's 1921 success in using US Army Air Service bombers to sink the German battleship Ostfriesland." Found under the effects section. There is more, but that is the most relevant section. So I think we can all agree that the sudden explosion in the number of carriers in the US and Japan's fleets after the treaty was an "unintended consequence" at least inasmuch as a treaty meant to prevent wars and preserve the post-WWI status quo helped contribute to WWII (at least in the Pacific.) SpartHawg948 21:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Maass Effect 2 I'd say the surmise that humans now get 3 dreadnoughts per 5 turian dreadnoughts if the Council was saved is reasonable, but working with the turians on peacekeeping missions as equal partners doesn't necessarily imply that we get to build as many dreadnoughts as them, only that they're giving us more respect. Thoughts? Diyartifact 19:55, April 15, 2010 (UTC) :I concur. Equal partnership and participation means jack squat in terms of changing the terms of the treaty. Remember that it's based off the Washington Naval Conference. At the Conference, Great Britain and France were allies and 'equal partners', but France was still limited to one ton of cap ship for every five tons the Brits got. Stating that the humans are now allowed 3 for every 5 turian is fine. Stating based off of one vague news report that maybe they're now on an equal 5-5 basis is speculative. SpartHawg948 20:07, April 15, 2010 (UTC) ::(edit conflict)I'd agree as well, that they are giving humans more respect. A good historical example of this, I like so history so bear with me for a minute, is the history between the US and the UK. The US revolts and fights two wars, The American Revolution and the War of 1812, with the UK and today they are close allies. Well from my perspective. But back to the topic, I think the same thing is happening here and may be a reference, but I am NOT going to add it in. Overall I think they are givin humans more respect due to the Battle of the Citadel and the different ways humans fight, see the Codex entry on the first contact war for that one. Lancer1289 20:10, April 15, 2010 (UTC) Turian dreadnought count Why would the other council species agree with giving the Turians a higher dreadnought limit than themselves? Also, did we ever see a dreadnought other than the Destiny Ascension in one of the games? (except the reapers if they qualify). One would wonder why the Alliance fleet that rescued the citadel at the end of Mass Effect 1 didn't have any dreadnoughts with them if they have so many of them and why the other races didn't station a lot more dreadnoughts with the Citadel in anticipation of Saren's attack.S0meguy 15:55, April 28, 2011 (UTC) :Because the turians are the peacekeepers of the galaxy and are given more dreadnoughts to police the galaxy and keep Citadel Space secure. :As to your second question, there is something interesting you should read on the Talk:Starships page. As to prepping for Saren's attack, we don't know what exactly was at the Citadel and don't forget that the fleet was spread out guarding the relays to the Terminus systems. :And finally, it's just Mass Effect, not Mass Effect 1. Lancer1289 16:01, April 28, 2011 (UTC) ::If the Turians are the peacekeepers of the galaxy I still don't see any good reason why the Asari and the Salarians would agree to be restricted to building a smaller amount of dreadnoughts than the Turians.S0meguy 20:27, April 28, 2011 (UTC) :::It's a balancing act, pure and simple. Because the turians have to police more space, hence the term "galactic peacekeepers", they are entitled to more dreadnoughts. Because the asari and salarians have less space overall to patrol, they get less, even despite the fact they have been around longer. If the system wasn't balanced, then you could have one species potentially overpower the other two. Lancer1289 20:43, April 28, 2011 (UTC) :::Right. Which is why they would just give everyone on the council the same restriction on dreadnoughts. You don't use dreadnoughts for patrols by the way.S0meguy 21:58, April 28, 2011 (UTC) ::::Dreadnoughts don't go on patrol? So do they just sit in one place and wait for something to happen? That doesn't sound right. Carriers and battleships, when they were still in service, did go on patrol and didn't just sit in one place. You do use dreadnoughts for patrol, and while it isn't very often, they do go on patrol as well. They don't just sit in one place and do nothing, that doesn't make any sense. ::::I again state that it's a balancing act. If you give everyone the keys, won't they all want to drive the car? You do have to place limits and the system balances the council species by what they are responsible for. While all three are responsible for patrolling the majority of Citadel Space, the turians have more fleets doing that so they would get more to do that job, it is also to make sure that one species cannot over power the other two, which could happen if they call have the same limits. If you don't have balance, then it will only lead to conflicts in the long one. Lancer1289 22:04, April 28, 2011 (UTC):::: :::::If we want to know why there are limits imposed on other Council members, perhaps looking at the real-world influence for the treaty (the Washington Naval Treaty) would be beneficial. In this treaty, signed by the five primary members of the Allied Powers of WWI, three of those five (France, Italy, and Japan) agreed to limit themselves in capital ship construction to 3 (for Japan) or 1 (for France and Italy) to the US and UK's five. The US and UK, in turn, scaled back on capital ship construction. Why? Because building massive warships is incredibly expensive! And when it comes to ships like this, arms races are common even between more-or-less friendly nations. By imposing limits, the governments of the asari and salarians would effectively be taking on cost-saving measures both for themselves, and for future generations which would be bound by the same agreement. :::::As for the other matter, I don't recall any instance where any official source claims that dreadnoughts don't patrol. There was one which states that they are only deployed for the most vital missions, but deployments and patrols are two totally different things. If there is a source for this claim, I'd very much like to see it. SpartHawg948 23:23, April 28, 2011 (UTC) Quarians I noticed that the situation with the quarians and the treaty seems hazy. One ANN news story quotes Han'Gerrel as saying they're no longer signatories. However, the Council still insists on inspectors. And in a conversation with Raan regarding the quarians arming the Civilian Fleet, Shepard says something like "That violates the Treaty of Farixen." Raan says something like "We'll apologize later" not "We're no longer bound by the Treaty." Worth noting? TheUnknown285 21:26, May 5, 2012 (UTC) :Noting how exactly? Lancer1289 00:17, May 6, 2012 (UTC) ::Maybe something along the lines of, "Despite having been expelled from the Citadel, there are indications that the quarians are still bound by the Treaty of Farixen..." and include the examples I give. Or maybe "It is not clear if the quarians are still bound by the Treaty..."TheUnknown285 00:21, May 6, 2012 (UTC) :::I believe we know from ME that since the quarians lost their embassy on the Citadel they're no longer signatories of the treaty. Furthermore, Han'Gerrel's statement in the ANN report is plain enough. I think the other examples you provide don't muddy the waters, rather they're demonstrative of politics at work. The Citadel wants inspectors on the Migrant Fleet because they want to know why the quarians are apparently arming themselves; as Hackett said in a CDN report a while back, the threats of the next few centuries will be external to the signatories of the treaty, and the quarians qualify as external. Shepard and Raan's dialogue is either an error or Shepard showing concern for the quarians violating the treaty since such a violation might ruin their chances of rejoining the Citadel races. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:41, May 6, 2012 (UTC) ::::I forgot about that. Lancer1289 00:37, May 6, 2012 (UTC)